RAHUL NANDA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant on the application for suspension of sentence.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that a case for the offence under Section 364A IPC is not made out on the face of record yet the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 364A IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The accused-appellant and complainant were knowing each other. It is coming out from the statement of PW 3 - Ram Manohar Sharma, the complainant himself, thus, a question of demand of ransom after kidnapping does not arise. It cannot be settled with an advance cheque towards ransom. In fact, a concocted story was created against the accused-appellant to settle the property dispute between the parties as the both, i.e. accused-appellant and complainant, were in transactions for last many years. It is only to settle the score that false allegations were made against the accused-appellant and otherwise, ransom cannot be settled with postdated cheques. It is in view of the fact that as per the complainant, the accused-appellant had taken him to forest of "Galta" and stated that he has taken an amount of Rs. 11 lac to kill him. The complainant then agreed to pay Rs. 16 lac. He came to the office and executed a document and gave a cheque. The aforesaid itself shows that a case under Section 364A IPC is not made out because if the complainant would have been kidnapped for ransom then he would not have been left by receiving a cheque of future date. The Exhibit P-9 has been produced to show a writing on the date of incident. The aforesaid itself shows it to be nothing but in a settlement pertaining to a property. Accordingly, the prayer is to suspend the sentence of the accused-appellant, as hearing of the appeal is likely to take time.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is submitted that the accused-appellant has a criminal track record. Number of cases are pending against him. He has been convicted in few cases while acquitted in others. A list of the cases registered against the accused-appellant has been placed before this Court.